User talk:Gene Nygaard/2008Dec-2009Jul

Black box?

Hi Gene, What's the "Black Box?" I am totally confused as to what you are talking about? Help? Montanabw^(talk) 22:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check a discussion in Template talk:Lifetime

Hi. Please check a discussion in Template talk:Lifetime and write your opinion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coor title d

{{Coor title d}} is deprecated, and has been replaced by {{coord}}, following lengthy and conclusive debate at WT:GEO. Please do not remove the deprecation notice again. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove it again, unless you have provided or do provide a link to the discussion on that talk page. Gene Nygaard (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See it

At the second paragraph of the introduction of Battle of Loc Ninh, there is a mention about the battle in 1967, it said In 1967, the Vietcong's 272nd and 273rd Regiments attempted to overrun the Civilian Irregular Defense Group camp there but was repulsed.. Please check again. Also please move the article back to the original title First Battle of Lộc Ninh, and the other one as Second Battle of Lộc Ninh, thank. 207.233.67.8 (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karizma R

I saw that you had removed the category of Indian motorcycles for Karizma, It is indeed an indian motorcycle.trakesht (talk) 08:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. Go look at the text at the top of the category--and at the categories which that category is in. That category is for motorcycles manufactured by the Indian Motocycle Manufacturing Company--see Indian (motorcycle). It is not for motorcycles that might be manufactured in the country of India. Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then that category is a mess with only 2 legit indian motorcycles and remaining made in india motorcycles. thanks for pointing out trakesht (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't looked into that part of it yet. In any case, Category:Indian Motorcycles is miscapitalized; it should be Category:Indian motorcycles like the rest of them, and an indication in the category name that it refers to a brand rather than a country would help, should probably go to WP:CfD. It doesn't appear that we have any categories for motorcycles by place of manufacture, and I don't see any need for such categories. Part of it is that many brands are actually manufactured in several different countries. Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delinking dates & formats

I was under the impression that US-centric articles should have their dates in the US style of month, day, year while other countries to be in the international style of day, month, year. Since the article I edited relates to a Dutch astronomer, and the dates were in US format prior to the edit, I thought I should correct it at same time as de-linking them. If I have misunderstood this then I apologise. The dates still need to be de-linked whichever format is agreed upon. -TonyW (talk) 09:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that ISO dates should not be used in running prose? "YYYY-MM-DD style dates (1976-05-31) are uncommon in English prose, and should not be used within sentences."—WP:MOSNUM Dabomb87 (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those in that article were in tabular listings, for the most part--not in running prose.

If you want to change it in a separate without implying that this is a part of delinking dates, that's a different story. Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And unrelated delinking: it is standard procedure to link the language introducing a foreign term. Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I relinked "Swedish". The article is actually backward as far as date formats go: the running prose contains ISO dates and the tabular listing contains International format dates. If you don't mind, I am going to change the article to international only. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black boxes have little weight in any case in determining existing formatting. When a template (including an infobox) does its own formatting, there is often no way of telling by looking at the template to know what format is used, and no reason to assume that editors using it know how to change it to make it consistent with the text added in normal editing. Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean by "black boxes". Dabomb87 (talk) 15:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Templates often take over the input and spit out something in a different format in which it is put in. Some of the date formatting ones, for example, take dates in YYYY-MM-DDDD format and output them in either DD Month YYYY or Month DD, YYYY format. They may have a default which gives improper precedence to the default form, even if they have a parameter which could be used by editors to change that default format--there is often no good reason to assume that editors using such formats even know that it is possible to change the results the "black box" into which they had put the information gives them for output. Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See, for example {{birth date and age}}, and realize that this template itself is sometimes used as a subtemplate in other templates such as infoboxes. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You & I should be friends

Your edit of Oswaldo Sosa is incorrect. It is common baseball form to write .2 to equate 2/3 of an inning. Check other baseball websites or check your old baseball cards if you don't believe me.

Anyway, after your edit, it prompted me to look at your user page and talk page. You seem like someone I could get along with.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 11:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not incorrect. And it is common to write .2 as a space-saver over the " 2/3" as you have written, but we aren't trying to fit this information on a narrow newspaper column. In any case, the availability here of the ⅓ and ⅔ symbols (Symbol menu on the edit screen) is even more of a space-saver.

The thing is, it may be "common baseball form", but it is totally unfamiliar to the world as a whole. It isn't the only form, either; the fractions are used in the baseball world too. But the most important thing is that the common fractions will be understood by people in the baseball world as well as those outside of it; the decimal-looking-but-not-decimal fractions are confusing even to those familiar with baseball. Gene Nygaard (talk) 11:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You beg the "Did you bother checking other baseball websites that aren't pressed for space?" question. MLB.com agrees with the form I used. That's a pretty good source if you ask me.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first of all, where does this "other baseball websites that aren't pressed for space" come from?

The "pressed for space" issue isn't necessarily a property of a web page or a group of pages. In any page, anywhere, online or off, there are spacing issues any time tables are used. It doesn't matter if it is a spreadsheet for your own use at home, a box score in a newspaper, or a web page viewed by thousands of people around the world.

Second, unlike Wikipedia, MLB.com isn't using Unicode, and the ⅓ and ⅔ symbols available in it.

Third, MLB.com is not a general-purpose encyclopedia like we are. If they use jargon peculiar to a particular field, it is nowhere near as much a problem as it is here.

But all of that really doesn't matter; if you are going to make claims about a particular website, you ought to look into it a little better first. Here are a couple of MLB.com pages:

http://newyork.yankees.mlb.com/news/wrap.jsp?ymd=20080402&content_id=2483726&vkey=wrapup2005&fext=.jsp&team=home "Mike Mussina took the loss after allowing three earned runs in 5 2/3 innings."
http://mlb.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?mid=200810263644799 Moyer goes 6 1/3 innings, striking out five
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/gameday/index.jsp?gid=2008_10_06_tbamlb_chamlb_1 Andy Sonnanstine earned the win with 5 2/3 strong innings.

It matters not one whit if they also sometimes use the ".2" notation. In that case, all we have is two formats to choose from. So the question is, which is the best choice to use here?

To use notation unfamiliar to the general public even where baseball is a common sport, for a sport that is not well known in most of the world, without explaining that strange decimal-looking-but-not-decimal format?
To use that unfamiliar notation, but take the time to explain it in every article in which it is used?
To simply use the universally understood common fractions instead, and be done with it.

The choice is a no-brainer. Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wanna play this stupid game? Like at the second paragraph of this article:

http://philadelphia.phillies.mlb.com/news/press_releases/press_release.jsp?ymd=20081110&content_id=3673626&vkey=pr_phi&fext=.jsp&c_id=phi

And it matters quite a few "whits" what form MLB uses, as we are talking about MLB players. You seem to enjoy arguing. I see why you have so many friends on Wikipedia.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, duhhh! We've established that MLB uses at least two different forms. The only question before us is which of those is appropriate for use in our encyclopedia.

So if you want to present some actual reasoning why you think we should be using the obscure and likely to be misunderstood form over the clearer, more generally understood form, have at it. Otherwise, you are just wasting my time. Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

You have to stop, it has gone far beyond being able to assume good faith with you anymore. We discussed this so many times in the past and the consensus has always been not to hide Å, Ä, Ö just because hockeydb doesn't use them, the function is only used for dabs, not to hide "diacritics" just because you don't like them. Regards. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 21:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is hiding anything but you. Stop your deliberate misrepresentations. Gene Nygaard (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, what am I hiding, stop talking gibberish. And how is using a players correct name a misrepresentations? —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 22:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vu Nhu Thanh

Dear Gene Nygaard, I have checked from the Vietnam Football Federation and Tuoi Tre Newspaper that i have wrote his name (Vũ Như Thành) in the right Vietnamese. You can check from this sources:

http://www3.tuoitre.com.vn/Thethao/Index.aspx?ArticleID=295008&ChannelID=14

http://www.vff.org.vn/default.aspx?mod=DetailNews&fNewsID=10282&fCatID=140&fSncID=&fMscID=

Best regards,

Ng2minh (talk) 07:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Von Soden

"von Soden" was correct, lide de Muralt in French or "van den Berg" in Dutch. You can not write De Muralt. In English you can write Mac Coy, Mac Donald, but "von" you cannot write with capital letter. It is German, not English. With regards. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it most certainly was not correct. But this isn't the place to discuss it, we'll go to the article's talk page. Gene Nygaard (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that new sentencies should start with a capital letters (I wrote that in great hurry, and thought about other next work), but it is always better to write "Monsieur de Muralt" or "Herr von Soden" (my argumantation was abbreviated), in that particular case "Numbering of von Soden" or "System of von Soden". But for now about 200 articles have death links to this section. It will easier to change "von Soden" into "Von Soden" than other titles. I can accept "Von Soden". It was more difficult to get accustomed "Textus Receptus". All world or almost all world write "Textus receptus" in title.

Is it neccesary to write "DEFAULTSORT:Minuscule 0048"? Minuscules are designed by 1, 2, 3, 4 etc, uncials by 01, 02, 03, 04 etc., 001, 002, 003, 004 can be confussed with papyri. Manuscripts have specific sigla. For what reason you wrote "Minuscule 0048"? Is it really neccesary? In some new articles I used 00XX, but I want know why. With regards. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a sort key, so that they sort properly in the categories, in numerical order. It doesn't change what appears in the category, just where they are in the list. Just look at the category listing. Then compare with the Lectionary category, for which many of them haven't been fixed yet, and see the left to right order there, not numerical order. Gene Nygaard (talk) 03:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. In any case they are unvisible. If I use a something I want to know why. Thank you.

Maybe its just one there, too. But go to Category:Greek New Testament lectionaries and see where 150 is in relationship to the others. Then go fix its sort key to read "Lectionary 0150" and go look at the category again, and see where it appears. Gene Nygaard (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is for correct order of articles in categories. Yes. Links to #Von Soden - in uncial manuscripts above 100, in minuscule mss. aout 50. Lectionaries von Soden did not classified. Let me correct some of most important uncials. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 09:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, but concernig "von Soden", perhaps we should ask person, who kows German as his first language. I think it is OK. I hope we will not change it, because a lot of articles are linked to this section (not only manuscripts). With best ragards. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 01:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbot

It looks like Lightbot is supposed to be delinking forms of measurement. Just wanted to let you know before you get too far into reverting the bot's edits. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 31, 2008 @ 19:15

Distinguish template

On 24 September 2006, you made a comment about the utility of the {{Distinguish}} template. You may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote#Distinguish template. --Bejnar (talk) 01:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Wiki article formatting

Hello, Gene Nygaard. You have new messages at Talk:Glypican 2.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Recat of Plastic welding rod

Hey, you recategorized the Plastic welding rod from fasteners to plastic welding. Since it is a fastener too, I've readded that category so that it now has two categories. Thanks for adding the plastic welding category Bobber0001 (talk) 13:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DEFAULTSORT

Hi there GENE, VASCO from PORTUGAL here,

Regarding the DEFAULTSORTS found in (some) articles, i had a theory and a subsequent request.

The theory was: i thought that the last name appearing in DEFAULSORT would be the one directing you to said person when you browsed through a determined category. In Víctor Casadesús Castaño (Spanish footballer), i composed the DEFAULTSORT to VICTOR because that is how the player is most known. That way, when you click, for instance "MALLORCA FOOTBALLERS", he will appear in the letter "V", not "C" (which will happen if you revert it to the (wrong) original CASTANO CASADESUS, VICTOR). I did the experiment (was not completely sure) and it proved correct.

My request is, having explained it (i hope) thoroughly, for you to not revert it again, or, if you do, please "text me" after.

Have a nice week, VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 23:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Farm name

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Farm name, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

A disambiguation page really needs pages linking to it in order to be in any way useful. This one both does not, and looks unlikely to. The term is not in common parlance.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gene! You should assume my good faith, I made an edit in such fashion and simply didn't know i was doing a mistake. Thanks. Kurtelacić (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question about changes to magnetic field

Hi Gene,

I noticed that you removed the links to Tesla and cgs (and changed Tesla to tesla). You left no edit summary, though, as to why. Can you explain why? (I prefer the old version.) It is a small difference but the article is already weighted down enough with small problems (and larger) to add to them. Thanks.

TStein (talk) 20:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I left a bit of edit summary. But in any case, tesla goes to a disambiguation page, not an article; but it was already properly linked earlier in the article as [[tesla (unit)|tesla]] going to the proper page, and cgs was already linked in the same paragraph. Don't link them every time they appear. The names for units of measure are lowercase: teslas, watts, volts, amperes, etc. Gene Nygaard (talk) 03:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetic order of Slovenian Municipalities

[1] It's pointless for you to continue your editing war here. Because these are Slovenian names and with Slovenian names č, š and ž stand after c, s and z. And also, what you mentioned in the page history, is wrong because that ain't English sorting as English alphabet doesn't support č, ž and š. So I guess you' d better stay at things you know well. Jambornik (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice airport

Gene, please see Talk:Côte_d'Azur_Airport#.22C.C3.B4te_d.27Azur_Airport.22_is_wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benbucksch (talk • contribs) 19:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Tim Cotterill

Tim Cotterill, an article that you have contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Esasus (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Types and uses of radar

Hi,

I've proposed the merger of Types and uses of radar article into Radar. Could you give your input on that as one of the author at Talk:Radar/Archive 1#Types and uses of radar. Pierre cb (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Just wanted to give you a heads up...I'm reverting a page-move you reverted three years ago when I originally made it under another name. I'm not trying to start a revert war — lord knows I don't care about this issue one iota, and I'm betting you don't either. The move is of Rodrigo Lopez (soccer) to Rodrigo López (soccer)...I'm not an accent warrior, he's just listed that way on his biography page at MLSnet, and his notability derives primarily from his career in MLS. I have added his bio page as a source, and also made a note on the talk page. If you have particularly strong feelings on the issue, go ahead and move it back. Just wanted to keep you updated. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 03:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confused

You edited Oliver Kentish and said you have "fixed mis-sorting", but it seems to me that you have sorted him unconventionally. Isn't the convention surname, forename(s) and isn't the convention to use {{DEFAULTSORT}} and not pipe categories? Am I missing something? If the argument is that he is Icelandic, yes, he is, but his name is an English name.

Please will you share your thought processes with me? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the convention for most categories. The ones changed are first-name indexed categories. Gene Nygaard (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me some more. What makes a category a "first name indexed category" please? Or is it hiding in plain sight? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Units derived from U.S. survey foot

Some time ago you argued at Talk:Mile that in the USA the statute mile was not necessarily based on the U.S. survey foot, despite a NIST document that seemed to indicate this was so. Another user has discussed the same passage in the NIST document at Talk:United States customary units and I have issued a Request for Comment on the issue. --Jc3s5h (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies

Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kelvin

On an edit for the God Particle by Leon Lederman, and upon removing the word "degrees" you wrote: "degrees Kelvin were thrown out over 40 years ago". My reply - well, does this mean my age is showing? :>) Ti-30X (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

circuit rider

Gene: We are currently debating how to fix the circuit rider and circuit preacher pages in the discussion section on the circuit rider page. I'd appreciate your further input. Skingski (talk) 21:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Stephen Moorer

An article that you have been involved in editing, Stephen Moorer, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Moorer. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Amadscientist (Contact Me, My Contribs) 07:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]